On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:44:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + >>>>>>>>> |undecayed>, what's the justification and advantage of the >>>>>>>>> interpretation >>>>>>>>> that it's in both states simultaneously? AG >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> None, since it isn't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't >>>>>> kill the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as >>>>>> I >>>>>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives. >>>>>> >>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be >>>>> decayed and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>> It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously. >>>> >>>> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it. >>>> >>>> @philipthrift >>>> >>> >>> I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that >>> imply there is no interference? AG >>> >> >> I think if one uses what I believe is the statistical interpretation of >> the wf, one is asserting that the wf tells us about our knowledge of the >> system, and nothing more; that is, the epistemological interpretation of >> the wf, not the ontological interpretation -- which leads to, say, the >> paradox of the radioactive source being IN two contradictory states >> simultaneously. OTOH, I seem to recall reading that the statistical (or >> epistemological) interpretation has been generally rejected, possibly >> because it denies the existence of interference. What's your assessment? >> TIA, AG >> > > > I has nothing to do with statistics, but with what is QM in terms of the > probability (measure) space and the definition of probability (measure) for > quantum phenomena. > > *The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics* > *Richard P. Feynman* > 1951 > http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf > > *Evolving Realities for Quantum Measure Theory* > Henry Wilkes > September 28, 2018 > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf > > > @philipthrift >
The statistical interpretation of QM asserts that the probabilities refer virtually solely to ensembles and not to individual -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/892714ae-bff8-44d4-8071-f32b9652aa47%40googlegroups.com.
